Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

U.S. Officials Accidentally Included Journalist In Group Chat About Highly Sensitive War Plans; Judge Says, Nazis Got Better Treatment Under The Alien Enemies Act; U.S. And Russian Officials Met For 12-Plus Hours Today; Mia Love, First Elected Black Republican Congresswoman, Dies At 49; FBI Launches Task Force To Investigate Attacks On Tesla; Evacuations Ordered As Fires Rapidly Spread In South Carolina, North Carolina. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 24, 2025 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.

This hour shock, confusion, and a lot of anger in Washington today after a journalist revealed he was added to a text chain with Trump administration officials who were planning highly sensitive military strikes. So, how in the world has this happened? Will anyone be punished over this major security failure?

Plus, Democrats urgently searching for a path forward as their party is bogged down by infighting. The advice former Speaker Nancy Pelosi is privately giving behind the scenes as Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer says, quote, I'm not stepping down.

And a state of emergency is declared and residents are ordered to evacuate as wildfires spread rapidly through the Carolinas. Are firefighters making any progress in containing these dangerous places?

Our Lead Tonight is the breaking news, that stunning report that a journalist was included in a group chat among the highest ranking security officials in the United States as they planned and executed in military strikes in Yemen.

Let's go now to CNN's Jeff Zeleny, who's at the White House for us. Jeff, what is the White House saying at this point?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, the White House is still reviewing how that magazine editor of The Atlantic found himself in a group message with the nation's top national security officials discussing highly classified information and sensitive information about military strikes on Yemen.

Now, this happened right before St. Patrick's Day. It was the weekend of March 15th when those attacks were happening, and Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic, suddenly was added to an encrypting message, a device called a signal that many administration officials and many just normal people use on their phones. And he was watching this conversation play out in real time right before the attack happened.

And take a look at some of these very recognizable officials' reactions to the attacks that happened on March of 15th. John Ratcliffe, he's the head of the CIA, he says a good start. Michael Waltz, he's the director of -- the national security adviser, a fist emoji, an American flag, a flame. MAR, that's Secretary of State Marco Rubio, good job, Pete and your team.

Now, this came all as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was laying out in a very detailed format the attack that was about to happen. All of this was revealed in an episode of The Atlantic earlier today. The president was asked for his reaction. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it's not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what?

REPORTER: They were using signal to coordinate on sensitive of materials and --

TRUMP: Having to do with what? Having to do with what? What were they talking about?

REPORTER: With the Houthis?

TRUMP: The Houthis, you mean the attack on the Houthis?

REPORTER: Right.

TRUMP: Well, it couldn't have been very effective because the attack was very effective. I can tell you that. I don't know anything about it. You're telling me about it for the first time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: And the president insisting he didn't know anything about it. That raises questions of its own. The president was not included in this group conversation. He had already made the decision to go ahead with this, but these were some of his top advisers sort of not second guessing necessarily, but raising questions if they should proceed.

So, Phil, this just set off a just a wide variety of conversations, but I am told there is now going to be a separate review inside the White House about the use of this encrypted messaging device, as well as on Capitol Hill. Tomorrow when the Senate holds a worldwide threat assessment hearing, they're going to be interviewing some of these top administration officials. This certainly will come up. So, never have we seen a breach of security like this in the modern age or ever before. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Jeff Zeleny for us in the North Lawn, thanks so much. My very, very smart panel joins me now. And, Beth Sanner, I want to start with you because look, I'll tell you how the review should end, don't do that anymore, in terms of using a classified app --

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: They needed you a couple of weeks ago.

MATTINGLY: Yes. Look, I should be a counsel at the White House. I don't want that job. Explain to people why this matters, right? For anybody who's saying like, look, these are principles on an encrypted app talk, talking about it, what appeared to have been, at least by the administration standard, a successful operation, why is this a problem?

SANNER: It's a problem for the same reason that President Trump and everyone on his team said it was a problem that Hillary Clinton had a private server in her home where she got classified information on a system that was not a government secure system. It is because national security intercepted by anyone, because you're walking around with your mobile phone or whatever, is a threat.

[18:05:07]

Does it mean that this particular instance that had happened? No, but it means that there's a pattern here of just a complete lack of understanding of what classified information is and what needs to be protected. And, you know, maybe I shouldn't be shocked, but I thought that the chief of staff was going in there to make sure we wouldn't have a case like classified papers ending up in a bathroom in Mar-a- Lago. Well, instead we have her participating in something like this.

And I just think that instead of asking how did this journalist get on, maybe they should be asking themselves, why are they on this?

MATTINGLY: Shermichael, to that point, it's a kind of gauge the scale of whether or not this is a problem for the White House by the reaction of Republicans on Capitol Hill, and the extent to which they're willing to say, no, this was actually 3D chess, right? Like this is a big plan. We just kind of -- you guys just don't see it yet. We're not seeing that from Republicans on Capitol Hill. John Cornyn told our colleagues earlier today sounds like a huge screw up. They're candidly saying this is a problem. Why?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. Look, I think the administration needs to reassess. I use signal all the time, but I don't know if I would've used signal to discuss classified information if I was still in the administration.

SANNER: You would not have.

MATTINGLY: We're giving you credit here.

SINGLETON: Yes, I don't think that is an appropriate means of communications. Look, the attacks were successful. I'm very happy about that. I just think they need to figure out a better way to communicate, talk about these things in the SCIF room. We're all very familiar with that process when discussing classified information that you don't want to fall into the wrong hands. I think this just was an error, but I trust the administration to quickly correct this going forward.

MATTINGLY: Why?

SINGLETON: Well, why because I mean, look, you don't want journalists having access to this information and worse than that --

MATTINGLY: You are the least of their problems.

SINGLETON: Well, wait a minute, but you don't want journalists having access to this information, one. Two, you don't want more nefarious actors having access to this information. So, that alone, I think, is reason for the administration to say, okay, there were some mistakes here. Let's make sure this doesn't happen again.

MATTINGLY: Jamie, what are you hearing from your sources, kind of intel community folks who don't often speak out about many things?

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they're furious about it. If there's an emoji anyone would use in reaction to this, it's the head exploding one. Look, I've spoken now to multiple, very senior former intelligence officials, national security people. They say it's egregious. They say it's stunning. Quote, they broke every procedure known to man about protecting operational material before a military strike. Wait, there's more. The lack of operational security and stupidity is just stunning.

Let's just say, you know, we use signal thinking it gives us a little more privacy. But the reality is it's also limited. And in no way, shape, or form should it ever have been used for something like this. There is a process. You call up the White House, you call up the national -- you know, the NSA. They hook you up in a secure system. This is not the way you do it.

MATTINGLY: Yes. It was striking to see Mike Waltz saying, hey, there's information in the high side system that you guys can look at, and then Jeffrey Goldberg saying later that he redacted or did not actually publish what seemed to be pretty specific war plans about the package that was utilized.

Ashley, we can play, and we have them, and I'm happy to play them, just the minutes upon minutes, probably hours of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton's email server and everything she did. But I think my question is one that, for you, that I had to Senator Chris Coons last hour, which is, what do Democrats do here? Everyone agrees with this. Republicans agree this was problematic. Democrats agree this was hugely problematic. They don't hold the majority in the House. They don't hold the majority in the Senate. They can't force a hearing. What do they do?

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, a couple things. First, I want to use some of the language that the defense secretary is using towards many members of the armed forces like calling the folks who might be there because of DEI, this behavior from these folks in this group chat was lazy. It was underqualified for the offices that they hold. And it is unacceptable. And it almost feels like they are in this position in doing this behavior and they're undeserving to have that position to put people in our armed forces at risk.

That's actually what they did. They were lazy and they didn't want to take the extra step to go into a SCIF to protect our troops, unacceptable to me. What Democrats should do, they should be saying exactly what I just said, but they also should be going to their Republican counterparts. They need to be going into their districts. They need to be talking to veterans groups, explaining to people they were putting your family members at risk. They were putting the people that you served aside next to at risk.

And making sure that American people, when we were saying before November 5th that this administration could be a threat to our democracy, it wasn't just questioning the 14th Amendment. It wasn't just giving people access to people's Social Security numbers without any regard for what they were doing about it. It was about being lazy with security, national security issues.

[18:10:02]

That is a threat to our democracy, and that's what Democrats should be doing.

SINGLETON: Phil, I don't know if Democrats would have solid ground to make that argument. I mean, Hillary Clinton deleted about 30,000-plus --

ALLISON: She was never the president.

SINGLETON: It took -- no, that's fair. But it took her some time to comply with the request. So, I think there's a bit of a difference. The administration did acknowledge they're going to look into this. They absolutely should. They have to make sure this never happens again. The fact that they're acknowledging that an error occurred to me again is a really, really good sign. We're comparing what happened a couple years ago.

MATTINGLY: All right. We could do this for a long time and I'd actually like to, I have a lot of questions for Beth Sanner after the show, but we have a congressman who's waiting. That's going to answer all of Shermichael's questions about the (INAUDIBLE). Thanks to you guys very much.

And, again, the fallout continues o over what is clearly a baffling report in The Atlantic, Trump officials accidentally discussing war plans on a text chain that included, yes, a journalist.

So, joining me now to discuss, Democratic Congressman Jason Crow. Congressman, I appreciate your time. I want to start with you're going to have two of the people that were on allegedly on this text chain in front of a committee that you sit on the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. The CIA director and the director of National Intelligence will both be speaking at the threats hearing, are both scheduled to testify in an open setting. What do you want to know from them?

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Well, first of all, there's no doubt this is one of the most reckless security breaches I've ever seen. Anybody who's been around the national security enterprise for any amount of time knows you cannot talk about classified top secret information over, you know, public, even encrypted private systems. It's just -- it's absurd to even think you could do that.

But what's more is that this particular incident doesn't stand alone. This is a pattern of incidents, whether it's one of Elon Musk's employees plugging in a personal computer to a SIPRNet secured system, whether it's providing Elon Musk with classified or secure Treasury Department system, whether it's the potential transfer of personnel information from the CIA in an unclassified format to the White House. This stuff happens on the regular within the Trump administration, which points to me to a culture of carelessness or even recklessness that is putting people at risk.

That is the thrust of my question here. What is going on with the administration that you are so cavalier about the protection of our most sensitive information.

MATTINGLY: Leader Chuck Schumer is called for a bipartisan investigation in into what happened. Look, I'm not naive. I understand how Capitol Hill works right now from a partisan basis, but we've heard from a number of your Republican colleagues at least kind of signaling issues with this, particularly those with national security backgrounds. Do you think you can reach some type of bipartisan path forward on an investigation here?

CROW: Well, I'm not holding my breath every time I think I can, or there's some type of bipartisanship that could be reached on a very sensitive, critical issue, I get disappointed, frankly. So, you know, listen, I'm going to do what I need to do. My fellow Democrats are going to do what we need to do. We're going to investigate, we're going to try to get answers. We're going to communicate this to the American people because the people who deserve to know the most here are Americans and our troops, right?

Think about what could have happened here? We literally had pilots, men and women, flying combat missions into Yemen, into heavily contested enemy territory, right? The Houthis actually have some of the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world now, right? And if they were tipped off we'd be looking for a pilot, or maybe, God forbid, a pilot could have died here. So, my hope is that there wasn't damage done, but we have to make sure this does not happen again.

MATTINGLY: Just to step back, this is the first day you guys are back in session since the continuing resolution. There's a lot of kind of intraparty back and forth, I think, is probably a polite way to put it, over the course of the last nine or ten days. You see something like this, this is a very real issue that transpired that became public today. You mentioned kind of what the DOGE operation has been doing. There's been so much coming at Democrats. I think they've had a hard time grasping onto a message, and instead they've been going out one another on some level. Do you think this helps coalesce the party? Do you feel like tempers have cooled a little bit in the last ten days?

CROW: Yes. Well, really, I'm less concerned about whether it coalesces a political party or how to politicize this. I mean, I'm just not going to politicize this, you know, I was an Army Ranger. I spent three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, frankly, all I give a damn about is making sure our troops are protected, that we have a reckless or sloppy administration that's mishandling classified information that our adversaries are constantly trying to get. And then they want to take that information, they want to use it against our troops, use it against Americans, use it against our classified financial systems to harm Americans and harm American interests. That is what this is all about, and that has to be our singular focus.

MATTINGLY: Just quickly before I let you go, do you think the secretary of defense or national security adviser should step down over this?

CROW: Well, we have to do the investigation first, right? Like what I learned is don't make this political. Don't jump to conclusions. We need answers. We need to figure out who was involved, what happened, what procedures were violated, and then we'll go from there.

MATTINGLY: Congressman Jason Crow, I always appreciate your time, sir.

[18:15:01]

Thank you.

CROW: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, a tense hearing today over President Trump's deportation flights. Why a judge argued that Nazis got better treatment than the migrants who were just deported.

Plus, the second lady heads to Greenland this week as President Trump suggests taking over the island, could be in the United States best interest. But for Greenland officials, let's just say, not so enthusiastic about the visit.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, an appeals court judge today had very strong words for the Justice Department over President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport suspected Venezuelan gang members.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There were plane loads of people. There were no procedures in place to notify people. Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, your honor, we certainly dispute the Nazi analogy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:20:00]

MATTINGLY: Let's go straight to CNN's Evan Perez. Evan, break down for us what actually happened in today's hearing and where does this legal fight actually stand right now?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Phil. Well, this went on for just about an hour. And we had expected these three judges on the appeal court panel to really focus on the mechanics of what the president's power is. As you know, with regards to this 1798 law, this is only the fourth time that a president has actually invoked the Alien Enemies Act, and the power is really, really vast.

And so the judges, we thought, were going to be focused on how expansive that power is. But instead what we had was the judges really looking at the mechanics of how the Justice Department, or how the Homeland Security Department actually carried out the deportations and whether these migrants actually had the right to challenge their declaration, the declaration from the government, that they are members of Tren de Aragua, which is the Venezuelan gang, that the government says are terrorists, and that's why they were put on these planes and sent to El Salvador.

One of the things we heard from Patricia Millett, who is a judge there, she was comparing it obviously, saying that in World War II, Nazis had better treatment. One of the things that the Trump appointee on the panel, Justin Walker, he was more focused on whether the challenges that these migrants could make should be brought perhaps in Texas, not here in Washington.

Now, one of the interesting things today, Phil, we learned, at least from some of the declarations from the ACL U, the lawyers who were actually suing the government, we learned that multiple of these migrants have actually been returned to the United States because they were wrongly sent there. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Evan Perez, thanks so much for the reporting. And I want to bring in former Bush administration Justice Department Official Tom Dupree and Criminal Defense Trial Attorney Stacey Schneider.

Tom, I want to start with you. The case that the Trump administration lawyers made today, how effective do you think it was?

TOM DUPREE, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think it was effective with one judge, maybe with two judges. It was definitely not effective with Judge Millett. I go out on a limb on that one. And, look, the Trump lawyers are making a argument for an expansive and aggressive presidential authority to remove aliens from the United States. And kind of in their defense, the president's authority under the Constitution is that its strongest when he is acting under his commander-in-chief authority or in his role as chief of our nation's foreign relations. But I think what was really concerning the panel, or at least Judge Millett, was the idea that these people could be removed from the United States without really any meaningful due process, that they could get a group of 200 individuals without notice, without a hearing, without any determination that they're a part of a gang, and send them out, that bothered her.

So, I think that's the issue to keep our eye on, is to see what the panel makes of that and also whether or not, as we heard from Judge Walker's questions today, whether or not the ACLU even filed the lawsuit in the right place, in the District of Columbia rather than in Texas.

MATTINGLY: Texas, the venue issue.

Stacey, you know, to that point, there was one judge we did not hear from today. So, if you're trying to read tea leaves, it was a little bit difficult from the three-judge panel. But based on the questions from the judges, we did hear from the two that did ask questions, do we have a sense right now of where this may be headed?

STACEY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE TRIAL ATTORNEY: Well, we do have three judges and with different minds, but it seems that because this is such a new and unprecedented, even the court used the word unprecedented use of this 1798 Aliens Enemy Act, that it doesn't seem like the court is willing to immediately jump on the side of the Trump administration and the Justice Department in saying that this is okay, and for a very minor point that the judges pointed out.

These people needed a process. They needed a review. That could have easily been done under the immigration laws. The Trump administration could have expedited their review. They could have appeared in front of a judge, the Venezuelan migrants and alleged gang members. And the judge could have decided that they should not be in the country and they could get on those planes.

Instead, this creative use of an act from the 1700s appears to be based on the questions from the judges and in applicable use of that law, perhaps an incorrect use of that law, we're not at war right now with Venezuela. And that is a wartime act that requires the country to be at war and for the administration to be able to point out enemies of the state. Hence, we have the word Alien Enemies Act.

MATTINGLY: Tom, you know, to that point, the ambiguity here on some level seems to be kind of a point from the administration utilizing a 200-year-old law. It's still a law. It's still in statute. They very clearly plan to use this. I believe some of the executive orders teed up the use of this law. This presumably, at some point, ends up in the Supreme Court, of which a 6-3 majority probably has more leanings towards an expansive use of executive authority. How does this play out?

DUPREE: Yes. And, look, I guess the first place I would start is, you're right, I think generally speaking, a lot of the justices probably majority do share to some extent the president's view of expansive executive authority. [18:25:01]

But the cautionary note I would sound is that, going back to the Bush administration, there was similar litigation involving individuals that we were detaining at Guantanamo, and a lot of people thought a conservative Supreme Court is going to say judges have no role in their detention. And that turned out to be wrong, that the Supreme Court said they actually do have limited, but they do have rights that can be adjudicated in the United States court.

So, I would say, I think it's probable that the justices on the Supreme Court share, to a large extent, Trump's view of his authority, but I'm not entirely sure they're going to say it is absolute.

MATTINGLY: Yes, and there's not a lot of scholarship related to this specific law. So, it'll be very interesting to watch play out.

Tom Dupree, Stacey Schneider, thank you guys, as always, I really appreciate it.

Well, U.S. and Russian officials met behind closed doors for more than 12 hours today, but are they any closer to a ceasefire deal in Ukraine? We're going to go live to Moscow, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

MATTINGLY: In our World Lead, a U.S. delegation is looking to make progress on President Trump's ceasefire hopes between Ukraine and Russia. Now, today's meeting between U.S. and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia. Comes a day after a U.S. team met with Ukraine's defense minister.

CNN's Fred Pleitgen is in Moscow. And, Fred, do we have any sense right now how much headway was made today?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they certainly talked for a very long time in the capital of Saudi Arabia, Phil. It was about 12 hours that the two delegations spoke to one another. There were several breaks that were taken. It's unclear how much headway exactly was made or what exactly was talked about. Because one of the things that the Russians said would be one of the main topics of all of this is the Black Sea Initiative, which essentially tries to make the Black Sea area safer than it is now.

Of course, you have had the Ukrainians and the Russians going at it in that area, especially at the beginning of Russia's full-on invasion of the Ukraine, the Russians using their Navy to target Ukrainian territory from the Black Sea. The Ukrainians have now been fighting back. And, certainly, that was one of the things where the Trump administration thought some headway could be made in general in their quest to try and get a fuller ceasefire going to try and see if the Black Sea could be somewhat calmed down.

Now, what we're hearing from the Russians is that the negotiators that the Russians sent to Riyadh are going to come back to Moscow, brief Vladimir Putin, and then there is going to be a text that is going to be put forward as to what exactly the results of these talks have been. However, the Kremlin is also cautioning that it seems as though a full-on ceasefire, that 30-day ceasefire that the Trump administration wants, still seems to be quite a way off. The Kremlin saying today that they believe there are still a lot of very fundamental issues that needs to be sorted out.

Of course, at the same time you have the Russians and the Ukrainians essentially accusing each other of conducting strikes on critical infrastructure, even though there is an agreement with the Trump administration not to do that. The Russians accusing the Ukrainians of hitting gas infrastructure in the past couple of days, even as the Ukrainians deny they're doing exactly that. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Fred, given those fluid dynamics, do we have any sense about any future talks between U.S. and Russian officials?

PLEITGEN: Yes, well, it seems as though this is an ongoing process. Essentially, the Trump administration has said that they want to reach this full ceasefire, and the Russians have also said they want to do that as well. But the Russians say that they want all of the issues that led to their full-on invasion of Ukraine in the first place to be sorted out before the weapons are silent, whereas the Trump administration says, get the ceasefire going and then try and sort these things out.

It's quite interesting because one of the negotiators for the Russians, one of the lead negotiators, Kirill Dmmitriev, who is, of course, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, he tweeted today more initiatives are to be agreed upon. So, it certainly seems as though the Russians and the U.S. believed that there are going to be more meetings, and certainly the Ukrainians still have a team actually on the ground in Riyadh, and they say they're going to continue to meet with Americans who are on the ground there as well, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Fred Pleitgen with the latest from Moscow, thank you.

Also in our World Lead today, President Trump characterized an upcoming trip by U.S. officials and Second Lady Usha Vance to Greenland as a friendly visit. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We've been invited, and they really like the idea because they have been somewhat abandoned, as you know. They haven't been taken care of. And I think Greenland's going to be something that maybe is in our future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: But as CNN's to Foreman reports, a lot of Greenland officials, including the prime minister, are condemning the trip all together, making relations between the Danish territory and the U.S. anything but friendly. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Teeth are showing at Greenland's National Dog Sled Race with the prime minister slamming a pending visit to the contest by U.S. government dignitaries as highly aggressive and adding, the only purpose is to demonstrate power over us and fuel American belief in Trump's mission to take over the world's largest island.

TRUMP: This is friendliness, not provocation.

FOREMAN: President Trump is racing to defend the trip by Second Lady Usha Vance, a likely visit by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and possibly a stop there by Secretary of State Marco Rubio too. Vance is soft selling her visit.

USHA VANCE, U.S. SECOND LADY: I'm also coming to celebrate the long history of mutual respect and cooperation between our nations.

DONALD TRUMP JR., PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SON: Here as tourists, seeing it, looks like an incredible place.

FOREMAN: But these are not the first visits from Team Trump, which for months has pushed the notion that annexing Greenland is critical to U.S. interest, as America, Russia, and China vie for commercial and military control of Arctic waters.

TRUMP: We need that for international security, not just security, international. We have a lot of our favorite players, you know, cruising around the coast. And we have to be careful.

J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Denmark, which controls Greenland, it's not doing its job and it's not being a good ally.

FOREMAN: And the point person on that argument is the second lady's husband, Vice President J.D. Vance.

[18:35:04]

J. VANCE: If that means that we need to take more territorial interest in Greenland, that is what President Trump is going to do. Because he doesn't care about what the Europeans scream at us. He cares about putting the interest of America's citizens first.

FOREMAN: Greenlanders clearly don't like that talk. A January Poll commissioned by Danish and Greenlandic newspapers found 85 percent opposed joining the U.S., and many consider Trump's designs a threat, even after years of cooperation, including hosting a big American military base.

Things have turned upside down now with the current president in the USA, the prime minister says. We must face the seriousness of the situation and acknowledge that every minute counts to ensure that the American's dream of annexing our country does not become a reality.

(END VIDEOTAPE) FOREMAN (on camera): So, not only is the president's claim that people there are very excited about this not ring true at all, Denmark says this is not for sale. It said it for a long time. It's been overseeing this autonomous country for hundreds of years, and it says it is not interested in joining the U.S. So, simply put, Phil, even before it arrives, the dog sled delegation is on thin ice.

MATTINGLY: Tom Foreman, point of personal privilege, that was some excellent writing. The lead of your piece, I very much appreciated. Tip the cap to you, sir, Tom Foreman, as always.

Well, last week a jury convicted two men plotting to assassinate Iranian-American journalist in New York, and that journalist is here live next with a reaction.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

MATTINGLY: In the World Lead, a high-profile Iranian-American journalist believes the masterminds who tried to have her killed are still in power. Masih Alinejad insisted that right after a jury convicted two men of plotting to have her assassinated in trial, prosecutors said one of the men gave $30,000 in cash to a Russian mobster in New York. That hit man bought an AK-47 style assault rifle, two magazines, and at least 66 rounds of ammunition. Police busted him in a traffic stop and found the weapons in the car. That Russian mobster went to prison, and the two men behind the plot will be sentenced in September.

I want to bring in now, Masih Alinejad, the target of this plot. First, I really appreciate your time. Just to start, with your reaction to the convictions last week.

MASIH ALINEJAD, AMERICAN-IRANIAN JOURNALIST AND DISSIDENT: First of all, it was not easy for me to face my would be assassins. I look into their eyes. I try to be strong, but I was very nervous, very nervous. But at the end of the day, when I was hearing how prosecutor actually helped me to testify against them, I felt empowered.

And finally I stared them down because I believe that that was, you know, after three years moving between safe houses more than 21 times. There were nights that I used to wake up in the middle of night without recognizing where I was. There were days that I had to look over my shoulders.

So, hearing about all the details of how they were trying to kill me was scary, but at the same time, I felt like relieved. Finally, they are behind bars, convicted, found guilty. And I am alive. I am alive, and I saw the humiliation of the Islamic Republic in federal court in New York. And I'm very thankful to the law enforcement in America that protecting me from the government of my birth country, Iran.

MATTINGLY: When you looked them in the eyes, what were you thinking?

ALINEJAD: You know, it was not just me. My whole family like were sitting there, especially the moment when the gigantic guy who got arrested with AK-47 in front of my house when he was admitting his crime, it was not easy. And I just, you know, I have to say that most significant moment for me, which I cried, was the moment when he actually said that how he was planning to burn down the whole house, and I'm talking about the house that is not just me living there, my beloved family. And he actually said that once he saw me, but I was sitting on my porch, he saw me. He went back to his car to get his gun. As soon as he got the gun, he came back to the porch and I was not there. So, I missed the bullet, you know?

I could have been dead. I could have been a dead person. Like for you or your listeners, it's like a scary movie, you know? But this is the reality of millions of people in Iran who face guns and bullets every single time when they take to the street, when they peacefully practice their civil disobedience.

So, this is in the DNA of the Islamic Republic, and that was for the first time finally in America I saw justice. For the first time, I saw the killers in my eyes being humiliated and going behind the bars.

MATTINGLY: You know, and the story you tell for people who haven't been following, there's doorbell cam footage of the individual in front of your -- I mean, it's jarring to watch as somebody who's not involved in it. And it's important to note, this was far from the first attempt to silence you in 2009. You were banned from covering Iran's disputed presidential election. Your newspaper was shut down. In 2021, there's another plot to have you kidnapped, now this murder plot. Do you believe this the kind of book is closed on this? Are you concerned about what happens next?

ALINEJAD: Absolutely, because the word safe is too luxury for those of us who dare to challenge the Islamic Republic. To be honest, as far as this regime is in power, none of us should feel safe. Today, it's Masih. Tomorrow can be, you can be anyone who dare to challenge the Islamic ideology, you know?

And I'm talking about regime that actually rape women in prison. CNN actually had a report about how after the uprising, woman life, freedom in Iran, teenagers got killed.

[18:45:06]

Nika Shakarami, only 16-year-old, sorry, not only 17-year-old girl, dead (ph). So my crime is just to give voice to these people, to expose the brutality of the regime.

No, I don't feel safe at all. But to be honest, thanks to the FBI, thanks to the Department of Justice here, of course, I'm going to use the opportunity not only to protect America from this terrorist regime, but also I'm going to be louder and more determined to give voice to Iranians.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to die. I love my life. I want to be alive and see the day that we are free from an Iran without Islamic Republic. But at the same time, I don't have any fear, any fear, and I am ready, as I said, to sacrifice my life for America as well. America, give me a second life. And I'm really, really appreciating everything. Every day when I go out, when I jump in a bicycle, when I just walk in the street, I want to hug every Americans. And I want to tell them that appreciate the freedom that you take it for granted, because for terrorists, they don't care whether you're a Republican or you're a Democrat. They hate America and they want to destroy America. We should all be together and united against this terrorist regime.

MATTINGLY: Masih Alinejad, really appreciate your time and your courage. I know there's a lot going forward, and certainly we will be covering it every step of the way. Thanks so much.

ALINEJAD: Thank you so much for having me.

MATTINGLY: Well, up next, a new stepped up effort to hunt down criminals who target Tesla vehicles. We'll explain. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:53:31]

MATTINGLY: In our politics lead, Republican former Congresswoman Mia Love of Utah died at the age of 49 after fighting an aggressive form of brain cancer. She was the first Black Republican woman elected to Congress, and later became our colleague here at CNN.

CNN's Jake Tapper looks back at her life.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At the 2012 Republican convention, Mia Love, the daughter of Haitian immigrants, made her national debut.

MIA LOVE, FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSWOMAN: My parents immigrated to this country with $10 in their pocket and a hope that the America they heard about really did exist.

TAPPER: As Utah's first Black woman mayor, she was running for Congress and voiced opposition to President Obama.

LOVE: Mr. President, I'm here to tell you the American people are awake and we're not buying what you're selling in 2012.

(CHEERING)

TAPPER: Mia Love narrowly lost that race, but she won over the Republican Party faithful with her pro-gun, pro-tax cut, anti-abortion stances.

When she ran again in 2014, she made history.

LOVE: Many of the naysayers out there said that Utah would never elect a Black Republican LDS woman to Congress.

(CHEERING) LOVE: We -- not only did we do it, we were the first to do it.

(CHEERING)

TAPPER: A rising star, Mia Love, built connections on both sides of the aisle. She was a reliable Republican vote, but she occasionally broke with her party on issues such as access to contraception and gun regulation and immigration reform.

She even spoke out against some Trump administration policies in his first term. The practice of separating loving families from their children at the border is heartbreaking to watch.

After losing a tight race in 2018, Mia Love became a CNN contributor where she relished political debate.

LOVE: Let people vote on them. Let them pass or fail. But at least they have a voice.

TAPPER: After being diagnosed with brain cancer in 2022, she responded with her typical fighting spirit.

LOVE: I actually had a doctor look at me and say, you're going to die from this. It's inevitable. They can figure out my diagnosis, but I don't have to take the prognosis.

TAPPER: Mia Love underwent surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and cutting edge immunotherapy, far outliving expectations. Her determination to survive and her faith were fierce.

LOVE: I have to say, this is for everyone who is struggling with something like this. Do not underestimate the power of a positive attitude.

TAPPER: She took solace in her Mormon beliefs, her family and her friendships.

LOVE: Hey.

TAPPER: I'm coming in to give you a hug.

LOVE: I love you, Jake. You're awesome.

TAPPER: I love you, too.

A wife and mother and trailblazer, Mia Love will be remembered by many, mainly as a beautiful soul, someone who brought a valuable perspective and a sense of humanity to the world of politics.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTINGLY: Thanks to Jake Tapper for that report.

Our thoughts and prayers with the congresswoman's family.

We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:04]

MATTINGLY: Well, today, the FBI launched a new task force to investigate recent Tesla attacks. Just today, authorities discovered incendiary devices at a Tesla dealership in Austin, Texas.

Now, in recent weeks, criminals have hit Tesla showrooms, vandalizing cars and even setting some on fire. Others have protested outside dealerships, criticizing CEO Elon Musk and his controversial efforts to downsize the federal government. President Trump wants vandalism cases investigated as domestic terrorism, and suggested those convicted be sent to prison in El Salvador.

Well, the National Guard has been deployed and residents have been ordered to evacuate as wildfires spread in North and South Carolina. Debris -- debris left behind by Hurricane Helene is fueling those fires.

I want to bring in CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam -- Derek.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DEREK VAN DAM, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Phil, there was high temperatures, low humidity and strong winds that helped fuel the fires across the Carolinas. This one is known as the table rock complex. But there's a larger story here, and I want you to see all the vegetation, the dried out vegetation from Hurricane Helene. There was a lot of toppled trees, downed foliage, and that is all dried out on the ground.

So, along with this increased fire danger, the drought that is ongoing across parts of the Carolinas, we have had very little rain. And you get a little bit of a spark and strong winds and fires will spread very quickly, especially with that dried out vegetation from six months ago.

Now, there was some rain earlier this morning. It has since moved on, but it really didn't bring any beneficial help to the region. Very light observable rainfall across the region. But what it has done is ushered in a drier air mass.

So here it is, a cold front advancing eastward through the Carolinas and much of the Southeast. So this will bring in the drier air mass and the potential for winds to pick up through the coming days could gust between 20 to 30 miles per hour. And some of these harder impacted areas with the ongoing brush fires.

So this story really not going anywhere anytime soon. The potential here for additional fire spread certainly there. Here's a look at Asheville's seven-day forecast, aside from a light shower or two on Tuesday, we dry out and pick up the winds as we head into the second half of the week -- Phil.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTINGLY: Thanks, Derek.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.